>and a push toward demanding we slam the brakes on industrial society and move in reverse.
Where does the article suggest this?
Where does the article suggest this?
It is self-flagellating for self-flagellating's sake without understand there actual material basis of modern society. This is extremely common in the environmental movement and for decades has been a massive political failure except for empowering perl-clutching NIMBYs.
I would be a lot more sympathetic if consumption reduction was the only way to go. But it is not. Abundant apartments without parking, abundant e-bikes, abundant transit are feasible, get the job done, and way more popular. (People love to romanticize low density, but rents reveal different preferences.)
I mean a writer needs to actually say something in order for you to criticize it, failing to mention something or focusing the article on a particular topic of discussion isn't a position.
For decade environmentalists have asked for political martyrdom (por political petard). It's never worked, unless you count Putin pissing off his natural gas customers (lol). Acting like that is the only strategy again and again is just irresponsible.
A stylistic choice like scope is not an error, so neither.
>Acting like that is the only strategy again and again is just irresponsible.
The article did not, you are attacking a strawman.